restricted access 237. Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, March 24, 1999
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

367 to preserve, revitalize, and use native languages and cultural traditions. (2) In developing the policy, the Task Force shall consider ideas in the Comprehensive Federal Indian Education Policy Statement proposal developed by the NIEA and the NCAI. (3) The Task Force shall develop recommendations to implement the policy, including ideas for future interagency action . . . . Sec. 3. Regional partnership forums. The Departments of Education and the Interior, in collaboration with the Task Force and Federal, tribal, State, and local government representatives, shall jointly convene, within 18 months, a series of regional forums to identify promising practices and approaches on how to share information, provide assistance to schools, develop partnerships, and coordinate intergovernmental strategies supportive of accomplishing the goals of this order. . . . Sec. 4. School pilot sites. The Departments of Education and the Interior shall identify a reasonable number of schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and public schools that can serve as a model for schools with American Indian and Alaska Native students , and provide them with comprehensive technical assistance in support of the goals of this order. A special team of technical assistance providers, including Federal staff, shall provide assistance to these schools. . . . Sec. 6. Termination. The Task Force established under section 2 of this order shall terminate not later than 5 years from the date of this order. Sec. 7. General provisions. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities , its officers or employees, or any other person. This order is not intended to preclude , supersede, replace, or otherwise dilute any other Executive order relating to American Indian and Alaska Native education. [Federal Register, 63:42681–84 (August 11, 1998).] 237. Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians March 24, 1999 The question of whether Indians retained hunting, fishing, and gathering rights on land ceded to the United States by treaty continued to be active late in the twentieth century. The United States Supreme Court in this decision upheld these rights for the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewas. The chief justice and three other justices vigorously dissented. . . . . In 1837, the United States entered into a Treaty with several Bands of Chippewa Indians . Under the terms of this Treaty, the Indians ceded land in present-day Wisconsin and Minnesota to the United States, and the United States guaranteed to the Indians certain hunting, fishing, and gathering rights on the ceded land. We must decide whether the Chippewa Indians retain these usufructuary rights today. The State of Minnesota argues that the Indians lost these rights through an Executive Order in 1850, an 1855 Treaty, and the admission of Minnesota into the Union in 1858. After an examination of the historical record, we conclude that the Chippewa retain the usufructuary rights guaranteed to them under the 1837 Treaty. . . . We conclude that President Taylor’s 1850 Executive Order was ineffective to terminate Chippewa usufructuary rights under the 1837 Treaty. The State has pointed to no statutory or constitutional authority for the President’s removal order, and the Executive Order, embodying as it did one coherent policy , is inseverable. We do not mean to suggest that a President, now or in the future, cannot revoke the Chippewa usufructuary rights in accordance with the terms of the 1837 Treaty. All we conclude today is that the President’s 1850 Executive Order was insuf- ficient to accomplish this revocation because 368 it was not severable from the invalid removal order. . . . To summarize, the historical record provides no support for the theory that the second sentence of Article 1 [of the Treaty of 1855] was designed to abrogate the usufructuary privileges guaranteed under the 1837 Treaty, but it does support the theory that the Treaty, and Article 1 in particular, was designed to transfer Chippewa land to the United States. At the very least, the historical record refutes the State’s assertion that the 1855 Treaty “unambiguously” abrogated the 1837 hunting, fishing, and gathering privileges. Given this plausible ambiguity , we cannot agree with the State that the 1855 Treaty abrogated Chippewa usufructuary rights. We have held that Indian treaties are to be interpreted liberally in favor of the Indians. . . . Finally, the State argues that the Chippewa ’s usufructuary rights under the 1837 Treaty were extinguished when Minnesota was admitted to the Union...


pdf